Jump to content

Zuqual

Seasoned Defender
  • Content Count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Zuqual last won the day on April 18

Zuqual had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About Zuqual

  1. A reasonable solution. The time sink for most players falls into two categories, leveling the characters and grinding the gold to upgrade gear. Giving people their characters seems like it should be trivial. Giving people their gold is fairly meaningless to me as the gold I have on hand is a paltry sum compared to the amount I have sunk into the gear my characters are wearing. Though I understand some people spent extra time amassing a horde and that would be important to them. I understand that porting gear over is the highest burden technically. I would love for them to consider transferring the gold value of the gear people are wearing (i.e. the amount that was spent upgrading it). That would make me whole. I understand that I'm unlikely to get it though and will settle for my leveled characters. In any case, I won't be playing until the fix is implemented. No point in slogging through massacre for upgrades when I have no idea if I will be able to keep that gear or even if spending gold on that gear will leave me in a worse place (if they port gold over but not gear then I would have thrown gold away upgrading stuff).
  2. I would compare it (imperfectly) to reading the first two books in a trilogy and then finding out that you have to reread them in order to access the third. You obviously enjoyed the first two, or you wouldn't want to read the third. But it's such a waste of your time. You still vividly remember the first two. Having to reread them is just an unnecessary and pointless slog. Some people would be ok with it, but it's understandable that others wouldn't. As far as "keeping it in the family" goes, you get the behavior you tolerate.
  3. In all honesty, people don't care about how hard you work. That isn't how you earn goodwill. People care about what you promise them, what you deliver them, and how you handle any gaps between the two. Hard work helps makes sure you don't have to deal with the third point, but when hard work doesn't get it done then you actually have to deal with it. I'd feel worse for you if the reaction from the community wasn't so utterly foreseeable. You didn't have to bring this shitstorm down on yourself.
  4. Recent reviews on steam are down to "mixed".
  5. To top it off, the game went on sale today. Nice discount for all the people that didn't waste their time in early access. Most companies do it the other way around... but not Trendy.
  6. They didn't tell their players because they knew their players would hate it. So why did they do it if they knew their players wold hate it? Because they don't give two shits about their players. Their players have already shelled out $40 for a game that is a pale shadow of the same game they sold almost a decade ago. They do care about the people that haven't given them money yet, and those people will be happy to know that they are on a level playing field with all the people that chose to support the game and pour time into it in early access. I'd say I was surprised, but I've been around too long for that. Just disappointed.
  7. Baseline (0 skill) is a 40% damage increase. My aura monk has ~300 skill and gets ~85% increase. My tower boost monk has ~2k skill and gets ~113% increase. So the investment of the extra 1700 points in skill nets me a 15% increase in total damage. Graphically: It depends on what your team or setup needs. A good dps monk will need to invest heavily in "boost" and also use a propeller cat. A tower boost monk probably wants to wear a speedy gemstone. Playing solo, I feel like I'm better off just investing heavily in skill. As for the weapon: Elemental damage does not scale with your "attack" stat. It is also problematic if you find yourself needing to kill anything outside of a strength drain aura that isn't a ogre.
  8. Squire: Mostly only used for walls -> all fortitude Apprentice: Putting 1 point in rate for every 2 points in power will get you close to maximum damage output. However, maximum damage output isn't necessarily what people want. Many people are making heavy use of deadly strike towers. Any time a DST shoots at a spider or DEW, it is likely to be overkill. With spiders dropping all over the map and DEWs chasing you in packs, this happens a lot. So it is helpful to have these towers firing as fast as possible to dispose of weak mobs quickly and get back to shooting ogres. With that said, I still go with a 2:1 ratio. You'll also want around 1k range so you can clump your deadly strikers together and still have map coverage. Monk: Giant auras are amazing, but without an EV the range you need to achieve (both on auras and towers) to open up new defense setups aren't easily achievable on top of the power you would need to make the giant aura useful. I don't advocate more than about 1k range. If you want to use electric auras then defense rate is useful, otherwise useless. Scaling of slow and weakness aura with power doesn't seem amazing enough to invest in heavily. If you're trying to make a push to get to a place where you can comfortably farm nightmare, I would say invest ~1k in range and everything else in fortitude. As your other defenses start to beef up, you can switch the fortitude over to power. Huntress: Mostly used for gas traps, so stats don't really matter. If you can afford to shift some DU into proximity mines then you probably are in a spot where you want a similar stat allocation to your aura monk. If you use the DDA builds site, many of the setups include a breakdown of the stats for the builders. That can help give you a sense of how various players are allocating points, and how those points may change for different setups: https://builds.dundef.com/list.php
  9. Influence points probably should have been retired at the start of open alpha. They where a means of keeping early adopters engaged and of having the importance of one's feedback be tied to the degree of one's engagement. This is no longer important or desirable for them. The game is now being shaped to be as appealing as possible to less engaged players who don't know about or often visit the forums. As such, influence points just create an expectation which there is no interest or payoff in satisfying.
  10. Those are the details we're going to figure out. What do you think? Should the towers stay? Should they disappear? Should we give bonuses or penalties for keeping certain heroes in your deck? This is the kind of feedback and idea generation that we're hoping to see from the community. If the towers remain, I think, it would satisfy the solo players who hate the hero deck so much (like me) It would. And if they don't then it would change exactly nothing for solo players. That's why this news about the hero deck is no news at all. What we've learned is that they are open to characters being swapped in combat, and that's about it. Outside of that, they want to change the hero deck but they aren't sure whether that change is going to mean nothing, or complete freedom, or any position in between. Reading this thread, I feel like I'm going crazy (or am the only sane one left). It's like we had been complaining for a year that the game only came in grey. And then in a much anticipated announcement they explained that they where going to change the color. It might come in white. Or it might come in black. Or maybe it would come in some color in between, and could we please provide some feedback. And then everyone is super happy about the announced change even though the only news is that there will be change. We already knew that. Hopefully it isn't just a stalling tactic. Hopefully the feedback is more important than, say, the feedback on speed and range was. Lest the post be only ***ing, here's some feedback: Swapping characters during combat is neat, but not healthy for the game. It will be immersion breaking in ways that I don't think people are anticipating and will remove what little attachment we have for the older versions of the beloved DD1 characters. It will remove a good bit of required planning. I also worry about Trendy building well rounded characters in an environment where any momentary weakness in a character can be completely compensated for by immediately switching to a different character. It does, however, do a good job of incentivizing the purchase of narrowly constructed characters who exist only for a combat specific niche.
  11. I'm a little surprised by how mollified people seem. If none of the details of how the system will work have been ironed out then this news is no news at all. The possibilities for solo play range all the way from even less restrictive than DD1 to effectively no change from the current implementation. I suppose I'm a cynical ***, but this reads to me like a stalling tactic in the guise of feedback solicitation.
  12. I didn't catch the stream. What happens if you build a tower with character A and then remove character A from your deck? If the tower remains, then the deck is just about limiting how many characters you can play during combat. If the tower is removed then this change helps groups while doing nothing for solo play.
  13. It would be nice if the system notified you when your post gets deleted by a mod.
  14. I'd offer you a drink, but we only have four glasses.
  15. It was the first one I've watched in a while, and it was definitely better than the ones I remember. The new guy seems to have a coherent and palatable philosophy about game design, and it comes through well. Will have to wait two weeks I guess. My hope is that the hero deck announcement was put off because they either weren't ready or this was judged to be more important. Part of me worries though that this was the hopeful enticement before they announce a stance that might otherwise cause a lot of people to give up.
×
×
  • Create New...